this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024

234 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers

2158 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

234

Bernie Sanders predicts 'rough' campaign ahead but thinks Harris has 'very good chance to win' (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 3 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 40 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Regardless of her touted chances of winning, let's not repeat 2016.

Get out and fucking vote like your life, and the lives of everyone you care about, and probably the next 10-20 year stability of geopolitics, depends on you turning out to vote.

I wish I was exaggerating.

[+] Antmz22@lemm.ee -6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

and probably the next 10-20 year stability of geopolitics, depends on you turning out to vote.

Yeah, I'm not voting for 10-20 years of stability in conducting genocide.

[–] sour@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you're not voting Harris you will do exactly that :)

[–] Antmz22@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you are voting for Harris you are doing exactly that, and it's disgusting how flippant you are about her supporting a genocide.

A vote for Harris is a vote for Genocide. As soon as she vows to stop supporting the one carrying out a genocide, she can gety vote.

I will not vote for Hitler to save us from Hitler (but worse!)

[–] sour@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But you wouldn't vote against Hitler if the opponent would be Harris?

[–] Antmz22@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I will not vote fora pro Genocide candidate. It's that simple.

Would you vote against Hitler if the opponent was Muhammad Dief?

Would you vote against Netanyahu in the same scenario?

[–] sour@feddit.org 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The fact that you put Harris on the same level as the others tells me all I need to know about you.

[–] Antmz22@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Is Kamala Harris actively aiding and vowing continued support for a genocidal apartheid state, yes or no?

Is Mohammed Dief fighting against the genocidal apartheid regime, yes or no?

You're right, it's honestly wrong to compare/associate the two...

Edit: since you advocate for supporting the "lesser evil", do you actively support Hamas against the genocidal apartheid state of Israel?

Or only "lesser evil" as long as they are pro Genocide of Palestinians?

[+] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -47 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I will vote like I did in 2016, for a 3rd party.

[–] cranakis@reddthat.com 31 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Unhelpful person pledges further apathy. Got it.

Voting for brain worm 2024?

[–] Sciaphobia@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

He's on a .ml instance

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's amazing how quick the "I just want someone other than Biden" crowd turned to "I'm voting 3rd party" the second Biden was no longer the candidate. Almost like they just want the Democrats to lose...

[–] Antmz22@lemm.ee -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Almost like they replaced him with someone who immediately came out and backed the same things we disliked about him.

We don't care about the person, we care about the policies like not doing genocide.

[–] sour@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And instead you enable someone that does what you hate, but worse?

[–] Antmz22@lemm.ee -3 points 3 months ago

The only thing being enabled is you people enabling a genocide.

Kamala Harris could, at minimum, call for an end to the genocide and vow to stop supporting it, instead she states that she will always support Israels right to "defend itself".

Sorry, but I'm not voting for Hitler. I wouldn't care if it literally killed me, that pales in comparison to the genocide she supports and the things it would enable in the future by normalizing her policies and beliefs as the "left wing" option.

[–] Antmz22@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Brain worm already suspended his campaign and supported Trump...

[–] cranakis@reddthat.com 1 points 3 months ago

Who he previously called "a terrible president." RFK is a fucking joke.

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Don't mistake it for apathy. I didn't vote for either major party candidate in either of the last 2 presidential elections because I didn't like either of the options. I'm not going to be schoolmarmed by anybody on Lemmy for doing so, especially since many of the people participating in US politics discussions on Lemmy seem to be Canadians or Europeans who, just like Russian trolls, cannot vote in US elections.

If you want viable third party options leading towards reform, you have to act accordingly. In '92 Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote despite only re-entering the race in October. In June of that year he was polling as the leader in the 3-way race, before questions about whether he would qualify for all states ballots. He could have won that election.

Since then, the two mega parties have done all they can to ensure no viable 3rd option ever emerges again. This year we were given a matchup of historically unpopular R, nominated pretty much by default through a party controlled process of primaries that couldn't be meaningfully influenced by primary voters...and on the D side we were given a historically unpopular D for whom the party scuttled all potential primary challengers, then at the last second they replaced him via their national process, subverting the entire point of having primaries, with a candidate who won zero votes in that initial process or the previous election cycles primary process.

That said, since as an individual I have no meaningful way of influencing or reforming either major party, and both continue to force candidates upon us I don't like, I will be voting for whoever I want. It is not even remotely similar to "apathy". Thanks.

[–] cranakis@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago

I don't see how you tossing your vote away to a third party that will definitely lose, in any way creates a future with more than two major parties. It simply will never work. Your efforts would be better spent trying to reform either existing party from within. Maybe you're not apathetic but you are delusional.

[+] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Capitulation in voting based on fear is apathy. I vote my conscience. Yours is a protest vote against something.

[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I vote my conscience

So you're fine with Trump winning being on your conscience?

Yours is a protest vote against something.

What? Most people voting for her probably agree with at least half of her policy, they're not just voting against Trump.

[+] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What policy is that she has yet to disclose one? And she could have 99% policy that everybody wants and supports. But the mass slaughter and genocide of brown people around the world should be a red line for everybody.

[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

What policy is that she has yet to disclose one?

Here's the Party Platform which she, as a would be democratic president is likely to follow.

genocide of brown people around the world should be a red line for everybody.

Oh, you mean the one she's trying to end? The one Trump wants to "Finish".

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Shes not trying to end anything, did you not listen to her acceptance speech? Or did you listen through the ears of someone that can't hear right wing authoritarianism?

[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Shes not trying to end anything, did you not listen to her acceptance speech?

Did you not listen to her acceptance speech?

President Biden and I are working to end this war, such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.

Source

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago

Out of one side of their mouth, they talk cease fire as they have just completed their 500th weapons ship into Israel. Actions speak louder than words. And that's why we cannot trust them. We have listened to what they said and then watched what they did.

[–] Antmz22@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes. Simple platitudes about "suffering in Gaza" while refusing to directly call out the one performing the genocide or even the fact that a genocide is being carried out.

Pay attention to how she calls out Hamas for Oct-7 (and spreads hasbara) while only referencing Israel in the context of a "defensive war" rather than the genocide they are performing.

Here's the full transcript.

With respect to the war in Gaza, President Biden and I are working around the clock, because now is the time to get a hostage deal and a cease-fire deal done.

And let me be clear. And let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on Oct. 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival.

At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking. [Editing note: Hamas specifically caused oct-7. Suffering is just happening in Gaza ..who is making this happen? Is it possible that we should stop supporting them in making this happen?]

President Biden and I are working to end this war, such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.

And know this: I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists. [Editing note: The interests here are obviously, Israel, and the Iran backed terrorists are the ones fighting Israel over perfoming a genocide]I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-un, who are rooting for Trump. Who are rooting for Trump.

[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

and spreads hasbara

including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival

Nice rape denial.

[–] Antmz22@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Nice rape denial.

Do you deny the rape of the Trisha Meili? ...

Two of the three victims specifically singled out by the New York Times in a marquee exposé published in December, which alleged that Hamas had deliberately weaponized sexual violence during the October 7 attacks, were not in fact victims of sexual assault, according to the spokesperson for the Kibbutz Be’eri, which the Times identified as the location of the attack.

When asked about the claims made by the New York Times, Paikin independently raised their name. “You’re talking about the Sharabi girls?” she said. “No, they just — they were shot. I’m saying ‘just,’ but they were shot and were not subjected to sexual abuse.” Paikin also disputed the graphic and highly detailed claims of the Israeli special forces paramedic who served as the source for the allegation, which was published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and other media outlets. “It’s not true,” she told The Intercept, referring to the paramedic’s claims about the girls. “They were not sexually abused.”

A spokesperson for the Israeli government, Eylon Levy, played a lead role in connecting the anonymous paramedic with international media outlets.

Anat Schwartz — an Israeli filmmaker who, before joining the Times, appeared to have no prior experience reporting the news — was hired by the paper to investigate sexual violence on October 7

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/04/nyt-october-7-sexual-violence-kibbutz-beeri/

Who told you there were mass rapes? What is their motivation? Do they have any evidence to support them, or do you just believe them because the "Muslim hordes" must have done what they're accused of by the ones actively conducting a genocide on them and admitting using mass rape as a justification for said genocide (basically the definition of hasbara)...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brSBEQVfXr8

Edit: it's also worth noting... We DO have proof of Israeli mass rape of Palestinian hostages. Israelis literally take to the streets to protest (really a borderline civil war if the govt didn't listen, which they did)their "right" to do so when soldiers got in trouble for gang raping someone so bad they had to be hospitalized....

https://www.democracynow.org/2024/8/1/israel_gaza_palestinian_prisoners_torture

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

All Harris has to do to win, is lean into who she IS, and at every oppertunity post evidence that trump is wrong about who he says she is.

Add a big helping of policy talk, a dash of memeing, celebrity endorsements, and boom, she's in.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

That and not have the electoral voters fuck her

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com -5 points 3 months ago

Her campaign doesn't even think this is true. They are essentially running a "basement" campaign. Zero events off prompter, speaking through surrogates, and trying to ride any potential DNC bump all the way through the election (or at least until early voting is underway in many states).

Harris is deeply off-putting to listen to when she speaks extemporaneously on virtually any issue. Therefore her campaign is banking on more or less hiding her, "freezing" the poll numbers approximately where they are now and avoiding big risks.

Literally the only inflection point that can change the race any further is the debate (or debates) if that happens.

[+] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If Harris leans into who she actually is she will lose. She's 100% right-wing authoritarian cop.

[–] USSMojave@startrek.website 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

No she isn't lol you have no idea what her real supporters see in her. Spoiler: it isn't that

[–] Antmz22@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It doesn't matter "what they see in her" it matters what is actually in her, and it's right wing cop.

Her speech at the DNC was literally about

Securing the Border
Funding the Military to make it "the most lethal fighting force in the world"...
Aiding and supporting an apartheid state in their genocidal endeavors.
competition with China
America is the greatest country in the world

...

[–] GreenSkree@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Weird. You'd think that's show up in her voting record when she was a US Senator.

Based on her votes, she was one of the most progressive in the Senate.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

i think any campaign within spitting range of trump is going to be a rough campaign. it's inevitable.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago

ABC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for ABC News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kamala-harris-win-popular-vote-millions-bernie-sanders/story?id=113126382

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support